In this guest opinion piece, David Webster from the University of Glasgow gives his critical view on the presentation of sanction figures

After their election in 2010, ministers embarked on a campaign of ‘sanctions’, that is, withdrawals of benefit, against claimants of Jobseeker’s Allowance. They inherited a level of 533,000 a year, but drove it up to a peak of over one million in the year to October 2013, while also increasing the length of the penalties. Numbers of sanctions have since fallen, but only to a rate which is similar to the highest seen before 2010. Employment and Support Allowance sanctions have also increased. Britain’s voluntary sector has produced a forest of reports documenting the huge negative impact of the sanctions campaign on their vulnerable service users. But throughout, the government has tried to minimise it. It happened without any announcement, taking claimants and voluntary organisations by surprise. While official statements since 2013 have frequently highlighted the falls that have taken place, during the run-up to the peak they always denied that there was any clear trend. And the DWP routinely claims that ‘sanctions are only ever used as a last resort,’ ‘in a small (or ‘tiny’) minority of cases’. Similarly, it has persistently denied that sanctions drive people to food banks, in spite of the evidence.

It is not clear why the government should wish to play down sanctions. One possible explanation is that they want to head off criticism from their own backbenchers. If so, they have been very successful. Tory MPs frequently rebut complaints about sanctions by repeating the DWP’s claims. But these are misrepresentations, supported by misuse of statistics.

The key misrepresentation by the DWP is to present the percentage of JSA claimants who are sanctioned each month (around 5%) as if it was the percentage who are sanctioned ever. But the typical claim lasts around five months, so the chance of being sanctioned at some time during your claim is much higher (more like 15%-20%). Many people move frequently between JSA and short-term jobs, so their chances of being sanctioned during, say, a five year period, are higher again.

Another problem is that all of the figures given by the DWP on the scale of sanctioning are understatements. This arises primarily from the DWP computer system’s practice of recording only the latest status of each sanction case. Sanctions which are overturned following challenge are shown as never having happened at all, even though the claimant will have lost their money prior to eventual refund. Also, no figures have yet been published for sanctions on the growing number of claimants transferred to Universal Credit. The resulting scale of understatement is large. For the year to September 2015, the DWP’s Stat-Xplore website is currently showing 311,806 sanctions, but the true figure is probably one third higher, at around 414,000.

Astonishingly, the DWP’s computers do not record the dates of claimants’ ‘failures’. Consequently, even the Department itself does not know how many people are subjected to the extra-long sanctions (since 2012, at least 13 weeks and up to three years in some cases) which are imposed for second or subsequent ‘failures’ within 12 months. Such figures as are available on the number of times individuals are sanctioned are also understatements, because they exclude any sanctions overturned following challenge. Even on this basis, a quarter of those sanctioned in 2014/15 were sanctioned more than once.

Note: Monthly averages after challenges are from Stat-Xplore, with pre-challenge figures estimated by adding back successful challenges. Yearly figures for % of claimants sanctioned after challenges are from DWP Freedom of Information responses 2014-4972 and 2015-2187, with pre-challenge figures estimated using numbers of successful challenges and assuming that challenges shift two-thirds of sanctioned claimants from the ‘one sanction’ to the ‘no sanction’ category.

This is a serious list of faults in the statistical reporting of what is a penal system profoundly affecting the rights, health and wellbeing of literally millions of citizens. Fortunately, since 2000 there has been some means of redress for this sort of problem in the form of the Statistics Commission and its successor, the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA).

Following a typically misleading DWP press release of 13 May 2015, Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research complained to the UKSA. Its reply on 6 July effectively upheld the complaint. It must have been this that prompted DWP to publish a note on methodology on 17 July. However, this dealt with only a small part of the problem. On 27 July I followed up with a more comprehensive complaint. Once again, the UKSA was commendably prompt in upholding all my complaints and in a letter of 5 August it listed various recommendations it is making to the DWP for improvement of the sanctions statistics.

To date there has been little response from the DWP. It has published new data on ‘hardship payments’, but this was planned anyway. It seems that the DWP may have become more cautious in the claims it makes about what the sanctions statistics show. But although it could easily have implemented quickly one of the key UKSA recommendations, namely to publish with each quarterly statistics release a statement of the proportions of JSA claims and claimants that have been sanctioned during the most recent one-year and five-year periods, it has not yet done so. Of course improving the main published statistics will take time, since it requires changes to computer systems. It will be necessary to keep a close eye on progress. We have not heard the last word on this issue.

Conference

Latest Comments

You also have an exact and clear idea of how all this affects people who are actually caught up in it. Unfortunately, the people who are responsible for these policies and decisions have never had to deal with it so there is no understanding and no empathy. We are losing our humanity in today's society.

Why would people then bother to make a home and spend money on it? We have to get away from this mindset that has now taken hold that Social Housing.....hate that term, is just temporary to suit your immediate needs. People should not have to up sticks all the time because a child gets older etc. When the old system was in place ie older people with larger homes than they needed they were offered incentives to downsize. In the 90's more Older peoples accommodation was built. Bungalows, Sheltered Housing etc. People were given help with removal costs. This has all changed. To make someone move from a home they have been in for years is cruel if it is not voluntary. I have been in my home since it was built. My daughter moved out as she should when grown up to make her own home. So after 23 years with roots well and truly down, should I be made to move? I have my granddaughter to stay. My daughter's room is now for her and was also an office when I worked from home. I could not fit my home into a small 1 bedroom flat. I do not want people living above me. This idea that if you live in Social Housing it is just accommodation but if you own it is your home is totally wrong. My parents moved willingly into Sheltered Housing but the change affected them drastically. My dad became stressed and ill and died a year later and my mother never settled and died a few years later. This was because they uprooted themselves and left their home and all the memories and familiar surroundings. Unfortunately like most issues these days, the humanity is being taken out of it.

Great resources on linking welfare sanction and conditionally and key social policy considerations with human rights principles (including dignity, non-discrimination). These considerations have a huge impact in narratives around poverty and vulnerability, and should be closely looked at by policy decision-makers and street-level bureaucrats.

Ok. I don’t agree with the bedroom tax but I do feel it would be a better option if housing rules were changed. For example why do they wait until kids are over 10 until giving families two bedrooms?
Then I also think housing should be fit for purpose so I believe when they move someone from a one bedroom to a 2 or 3 it should be with the understanding only until the children grow up and leave home then they should have their Tennancy moved back to something more suitable again like a one bedroom.

A fine well written and clear example of what is broken in our welfare system.
They are asking for submission for the next select committee meeting on welfare and I would submit this post if it were my choice.
It is a vicious cycle for some who have no chance of finding work however hard they might try. It is the employers who ultimately make the decision if employees are fit and ready to work, not the DWP.
Having a budget of £2 per day for food , job searching activities, keeping your appearance and strength up, and having to jump through hoops and tick boxes on all those strength zapping, soul destroying schemes courses and programs that do nothing but heap yet even more pressure and stress.
The affects of stress on both mental and physical health are well documented and nothing can be more stressful than not knowing week in, week out, that your hand to mouth existence is constantly at risk.
Sanctions are death sentences for some, no getting away from that fact, those charged with administrating the regime should hang their heads in shame, it is those who should make the stand to bring about change.
Or do they deceive themselves into believing long time shirker Jim who they sanctioned last month and who has not been seen again at the local JCP, Is now enjoying the fruits of his labor thanks to the Works Coaches helpful push they so desperately needed.
So clearly sanctions work and a good done job done by me, high five everyone.